9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 376 - AT - Central ExciseContravention of provisions of Notification No. 42/2001-CE as amended read with Excise Rule 19 with an intent to evade payment of central excise duty - failure to submit the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 issued by HBL along with copies of Shipping Bill and Bill of Lading - HELD THAT - The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant had obtained CT-1 Certificates from the Jurisdictional Authorities at Jaipur after executing a bond based on which excisable goods were removed without payment of duty under Excise Rule 19 under two ARE-1 forms. The conditions subject to which goods can be removed for export without payment of duty under this rule were prescribed by the Board. The basic requirement in this procedure is that there is evidence of the goods which were removed from the factory must be exported. The ARE-1 issued by the Range Superintendent must be matched with the corresponding shipping bills under which they were exported. Excise Rule 19 does not provide that one could clear the goods and sell them to anybody in the domestic market who in turn may sell them to somebody else who may export goods or use them to manufacture some goods which may finally be exported. Undisputedly in this case the appellant had not exported the goods removed under ARE-1 but sold them to M/s CEL. Therefore there is no evidence from the documents submitted by the appellant that the goods were exported. Conclusion - The appellant had not exported the goods which were removed as per the procedure prescribed. Therefore the demand of duty interest and penalties imposed on the appellant need to be sustained. Appeal dismissed.
The issues presented and considered in the legal judgment are as follows:1. Whether the appellant complied with the provisions of Excise Rule 19 and Notification No. 42/2001-CE regarding export without payment of duty.2. Whether the appellant exported the goods for which duty exemption was claimed.3. Whether the demand of duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant is justified.The detailed analysis of the issues is as follows:Issue 1:Relevant legal framework and precedents:- Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944- Rule 4 and Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002- Excise Rule 18 and Excise Rule 19- Notification No. 42/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001Court's interpretation and reasoning:- The appellant obtained CT-1 Certificates to procure goods without payment of duty for export under Excise Rule 19.- The Board prescribed conditions for export without payment of duty.- The procedure requires evidence that the goods removed from the factory were actually exported.- Documentary proof, such as matching ARE-1 with Shipping Bills, is crucial to establish export.Key evidence and findings:- The appellant did not submit original copies of ARE-1, Shipping Bills, and Bill of Lading as required.- The appellant sold the goods to M/s Central Electronics Ltd. instead of exporting them.Application of law to facts:- The appellant failed to provide evidence of export as required by Excise Rule 19 and Notification No. 42/2001-CE.- Non-compliance with export procedures led to the demand of duty, interest, and penalties.Treatment of competing arguments:- The appellant argued substantial compliance with the law and limitations on the demand period.- The Revenue supported the impugned order, emphasizing the lack of evidence of actual export.Conclusions:- The Court found that the appellant did not export the goods as required by the law.- The demand of duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the appellant was upheld.- The appeal was dismissed.Significant holdings:- The appellant's failure to provide evidence of export led to the dismissal of the appeal.- The Court emphasized the importance of documentary proof to establish compliance with export procedures.In conclusion, the legal judgment analyzed the appellant's non-compliance with export procedures under Excise Rule 19 and upheld the demand of duty, interest, and penalties due to the lack of evidence of actual export. The Court's decision was based on the requirement of documentary proof to demonstrate compliance with the law.
|
